gunsfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Alice Shade
A welcome from Jocke Pirat Hello, , and welcome to Gunpedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers: *'Always sign your posts on talk pages!' That way, others will know who left which comments. * *How to write a great article *Naming conventions *Manual of Style *Wikipedia Glossary I hope you enjoy editing here. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the Wiki Forum or Feedback Forum. The Community Portal can also be very useful. Happy editing! -- 14:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks. I`ll look around for now, see if there are things to do. ^_^ Alice 20:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC) *Hello, Alice Shade. If you need anything template-related, ask me. I'm also an admin here by the way. **Okay. If you describe what you want in your signature, I could make it for you. Rifle Category * Well, the idea behind the category originally was to have rifles in their classic definition categorized there - like the Henry Repeating Rifle, blunderbluss, et cetera. -- 20:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC) * Any gun that can qualify for the term "rifle", and not any other categories that are out there can be put in the rifle category. -- 01:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC) * That's actually what I meant. I reorganized it a bit. However, I'm not going to fix all the miscategorized articles. -- 02:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC) * It's a wiki. Change what you want. If it's unwanted someone will change it back. I've already changed the categories for several articles. -- 20:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Wiki Hey Alice, could you give me your opinion on this wiki I proposed? * Actually, Brain40 made a category(or rather categories) just like that a while ago. There are the Early Firearms, Flintlock, Caplock, Matchlock, and Wheellock categories. -- 20:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC) * There are already articles for all of the *locks. Personally, I saw this coming, but let it pass, simply because there just might be potential to have many models of these weapons. Talk to Brain40 about it. He might delete the categories. I'll strip them from the front page in exchange for Rotaretilbo's categories. -- 22:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Modifications Unlike Wikipedia, this Wiki is devoted to guns. As such, I think it would be nice to have a different article for different weapons. The M16A4, for example, if different from the M16, which is different from the AR-10, though all are part of the same lineage of weapon. Right now, the modifications are stubs, so to speak, but I hope that eventually people will add information that makes each stub unique. Spammy, perhaps, but out of line, not so. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Also, it should be noted that the G3 is an extreme example. Technically, one can divide the G3 and G3K into two separate weapons (similar to the M16 and M4), thus narrowing it down to 11 articles and 2 articles, and even then, the G3 is the only example of so many official modifications. The M16, for example, can only claim five, maybe six or seven at best (AR-10, AR-15, M16, M16A1, M16A2, M16A3, and M16A4). What you must remember is that some companies modify guns and give them different numbers (the AK-47 has a series of guns that are mere modifications, such as the AK-101, AK-102, etc). Where would we draw the line of "modifications"? Would it be fair to say that since the G3's modifications have G3 in them, they are undeserving of their own articles, and in the same sense, would it be fair to say that since the AK-101 can technically be considered a separate weapon, that it is deserving of its own article. We either do all or nothing, in my opinion, and since so many guns are based off others, nothing really isn't much of an option. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 22:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC) But again, where does one draw the line? Is caliber more important than barrel length, or stock? Stock is an actual change of design, caliber a change in mechanics, and barrel length a bit of both (affecting both, at least). Who are we to say which is more important than the other. The AR-10 may have been a different caliber, but the AR-15 was heavily based upon it, and the AR-15 basically is the M16 (though not quite...I believe the M16 was the...AR-15E1 if I'm not mistaken, though I'm not positive). And because I always leave links at the bottom, comparing on the fly isn't too much more difficult. When one wants to compare separate guns, one has to click a link as well. It is no different for modifications. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Hmmm...it was XM16E1...which was the M16A1. However, what I find funny is that while the AR-15 and M16 are essentially the same gun, Wikipedia thought they different enough to warrent separate articles. Also, you said that caliber was enough to have the AR-10 and M16 separate, yet the M16A1 and A2 have different calibers (in a way). Yes, I know they are both 5.56x45mm, but one is 5.56x45mm (Remington .223) / M193 and the other is 5.56x45mm NATO / M855. As such, I stand by my decision to have separate articles for different modifications. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 00:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC) And when is that line drawn? I see that you coupled the FN FAL and its machine gun companion together. Wouldn't a change in gun type be drastic enough to warrent different articles if a change in caliber will? Also, having multiple gun info templates appears to cause errors on the page (as in, the article itself starts at the top of the last template, leaving a rather large blank space between it and the top of the page). The problem is, what is "drastic"? Can you give it a definite definition? If not, then it isn't exactly format as much as opinion, as format implies uniformity, and using a word like "drastic" does not create a set restriction, but is rather based upon the opinion of the author. My system is much more uniform. If its a modification, and the maker thought it deserved an official name, then it deserves an article. And I didn't say I would fill the articles with information, I said that if I were to write out the information already provided in the gun info template, it would lengthen the articles considerably. However, I do hope that someone who knows more personally about the modifications than I could add even more info, though I wouldn't hold my breath. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC) The problem with your system is that right now, we need articles. Perhaps later, when there are actually many articles here, and many users, we can worry about stubs, but for now, we need be content with having articles at all. That's why stubs don't bother me much. As for the FN FAL and its machine gun companion, I suppose I can see that. By the way, what browser are you using. I'm on IE...7 or whatever the new update was, and the text doesn't start until the HBAR template for me. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC) I suppose we can agree to disagree. Normally, I would be against stubs, but this early in Gunpedia I think we need to take any article we can get with the hopes that others will come along and help improve. I suppose I was eventually going to have to update from IE...I'll probably go download Firefox or Opera later tonight. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 04:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, but Wiki with 25 well cared-for articles and another forty stubs does better in its early life than Wiki with 30 well cared-for articles and Wiki with 300 stub articles. All in all, I can see where both philosophies could work. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 05:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Which one was that? Its been so long since I worked on those articles that I can hardly remember. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 05:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Lol, that was Ryan. He is a very big fan of the P90. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 05:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Categories Well, there are articles about each type, and, in my opinion, given the impact on firearms today by older firearms of yesterday, each one should have a category. Here's an example, if someone wanted to know about the wheellock, and only found one category for all older firearms, and that person only knew base information (if any) about certain gunlocks other than the wheellock, a seperate category for each gunlock type sounds like a much better idea to me if someone needs specific information. This is just my opinion though. *Well the gunlock categories could be subcategorized into the early firearms category. **As long as we keep the categories I'm fine, since I see your point when it comes to the Main page. And when it comes to Craig Ferguson, just search him on either google or youtube and you'll see his significance. Anyway, thanks for the message. ***Well, if you're going to include a picture make sure it isn't obscene, and it isn't too large (see Forum:Images in Signatures), and, that's really about it as far as I know, ask Jocke Pirat for more information. ****LOL!!!! Yeah that's just a user's gag on here, though feel free to use whatever rank you want as long as it's below mine and Jocke's. *****Cool. Names But on the same note, some guns of totally different origins and design receieve the same name. For example, the H&K G41, a canceled assault rifle of the Bundeswehr vs the Walther G41, a semi-automatic rifle of the Wehrmacht. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 08:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Also, technically, by moving an article, a redirect should be established automatically (at least...it is on other Wikis and I could have sworn here). :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 09:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC) The only difference between what you suggest and what I did is that the end result has the company name in the title of the article. Either way, no matter which you type in, you end up at the article. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC) And if you change the category code so that it reads TAR-21, where Rifles is whatever category you want it to be in, then it won't have the IMI at the category. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Sounds good to me :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOMHalo: Galaxy' 04:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Grenade Launchers See here. Flamethrowers are not acceptable, as they do not fire a projectile. -- 02:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC) * The LPO-50 I would probably not accept, because its mixture is not encased in a shell of some sort. The larger grenade launchers seem to lean more towards a gun than artillery, should it be able to be held by a man in one way shape or form. -- 14:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) * By being able to be held by a man I mean you could at least sling it back. A gun armed on a tripod can be at least held IIRC. If the gun is to large to be simply held then we can classify it as artillery(such as a howitzer) and it won't be accepted.-- 22:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC) * Okay, I'll change it, and then I'll add that category to the front page. -- 14:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Article Hello, I noticed in the article Harper`s Ferry Horse Pistol, you said it was a caplock type in the infobox, but the picture shows a flintlock. Should I put "flintlock" in the infobox in the place of "caplock"? guns and stuff wheres the articles on the M82 Barrett 50 caliber rifle? or the HK USP? Any way.... nice work on the articles u did. they're awesome.